The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of life expectancy and non-pecuniary damages in determining compensation for motor accidents.

K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.

1. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, the first respondent in O. P. (M.V) No. 348/1981 before the M. A. C. T., Ernakulam, is the appellant.

2. The award is under challenge. The Tribunal has decreed a sum of Rs. 24,000/- = at damages with interest at 6% from 15-5-1981 till realisation and cost.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 are the parents of Ajay Kumar alias Rajan who died in a motor accident which occurred at 00. 45 A. M. at Pettah near Thripunithura on 16-11-1980. The deceased at the time of his death was 21 and was a waiter in the Malabar House on the Market Road. At the lime of his death he was getting Rs. 300/- as salary per month excluding his expenses and tips. The parents claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/ = as compensation for loss of dependency and damages to clothing and articles.

4. The Tribunal after evaluating the evidence has found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent. The Tribunal has fixed the multiplicand at Rs. 2,400/- = and the multiplier at 10.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was due to the negligent driving of the driver of the bus was liable to be vacated because the evidence would show that negligence could be attributed to the victim also. That this argument is without substance can be seen from the evidence available on record. The evidence relied on by the Tribunal in our view establishes beyond doubt that it was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus the accident occurred. The above argument therefore is rejected.

6. We should have dismissed the appeal under the circumstances. But it has become necessary to go into the merits of the case, because respondents 1 and 2 have filed a cross objection. According to the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 the Tribunal without taking into account the expectancy of the life of the deceased has arbitrarily fixed the multiplier at 10. As already noted the deceased at the time of death was only 21. The father was aged 51 and the mother 48. The dependents in the circumstances . could have had the benefit of the earning of the deceased at least for 20 years, the learned counsel for the respondents argues. Regarding the age of the deceased as also the parents discernible from the records, there is no dispute. If that be the position, the life expectancy of the respondents which is shorter when compared to the life expectancy of the deceased requires to be taken into account in fixing the multiplier. That is the principle that should be adopted has been held by the Supreme Court in C. K. S. Iyer & Others v. T. K. Nair & Others (AIR 1970 SC 376). This however, is only one of the relevant factors that will be taken into account in fixing the damages. Taking into account the facts and peculiar circumstances of the case, we are of opinion that the multiplier can be fixed at 15. On a perusal of the records, we are of the view that the Tribunal has correctly fixed the multiplicand at Rs. 2,400/-. That means, the finding of the Tribunal that the multiplicand can be fixed at Rs. 2,400/ = is to be taken as reasonable and the damages can be calculated on that basis.

7. In the light of the above discussion, the dependents, that is respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 36,000/ = instead of Rs 24,000/ = fixed by the Tribunal, as damages.

8. There is yet another question arising for consideration and it is this: whether respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to get the conventional compensation for the pain and suffering of the deceased and loss of enjoyments of life. The counsel for respondents 1 and 2 argues that this claim is an allowable one because this will be a loss to the estate of the deceased which, ordinarily devolves on the dependants. As to how the compensation under this head could be assessed, there is no proper guideline except those suggested by some pronouncements of the High Courts and t